l\epnblic of tlJe ~biltpptnes

~upreme QCon rt
;ffianila

ENBANC

ANTONIO D. DAYAO, ROLANDO G.R. No. 193643

P. RAMIREZ and ADELIO R.
CAPCO,
Petitioners,

-versus-

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and LPG MARKETERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x
FEDERATION OF PHILIPPINE G.R. No. 193704
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Petitioner, Present:

SERENO, C.J,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
-versus- PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,*
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE, and
LEONEN,JJ
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and LPG MARKETERS Promulgated:
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Respondents. January 29, 2013

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
On leave.
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

DECISION

REYES, J.:

The Case

At bench are consolidated1 petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of

the Rules of Court, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order, seeking the annulment of the Resolutions of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) dated August 5, 20102 and September 6, 2010.3

The first assailed resolution denied the complaint filed by petitioners

Antonio D. Dayao, Rolando P. Ramirez, Adelio R. Capco and Federation of
Philippine Industries, Inc. (FPII) for the cancellation of the registration of
private respondent LPG Marketers Association, Inc. (LPGMA) as a sectoral
organization under the Party-List System of Representation. The second
assailed resolution denied reconsideration.

The Facts

The individual petitioners are dealers of different brands of liquefied

petroleum gas (LPG)4 while petitioner FPII is an association comprised of
entities engaged in various industries in the country.5

Private respondent LPGMA is a non-stock, non-profit association of

consumers and small industry players in the LPG and energy sector who
have banded together in order to pursue their common objective of providing
quality, safe and reasonably priced gas and oil products.6 The group
advocates access to reasonably priced LPG by household consumers.7

On May 21, 2009, LPGMA sought to advance its cause by seeking

party-list accreditation with the COMELEC, through a petition for
registration as a sectoral organization for the purpose of participating in the
May 10, 2010 elections under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941 or the
Party-List System Act. LPGMA claimed that it has special interest in the
LPG industry and other allied concerns. It averred that one of its programs
1
Per Resolution dated October 12, 2010; rollo (G.R. No. 193704), p. 835.
2
Rollo (G.R. No. 193643), pp. 65-70.
3
Id. at 85-90.
4
Total Gas for Antonio Dayao, Petron Gasul for Adelio Capco and Shellane for Rolando Ramirez;
id. at 260.
5
Rollo (G.R. No. 193704), p. 678.
6
Id. at 192.
7
Rollo (G.R. No. 193643), p. 148.
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

is the promotion of fair trade practices and prevention of re-entry of cartels

and monopolies by actively pursuing the initial gains of oil deregulation, and
vigilant advocacy for the curtailment of bureaucratic and regulatory
procedures and governmental practices detrimental to the entry, development
and well-being of small LPG entrepreneurs.8

After the requisite publication, verification and hearing,9 and without

any apparent opposition, LPGMA’s petition was approved by the
COMELEC in its Resolution dated January 5, 2010.10

Four (4) months thereafter, individual petitioners lodged before the

COMELEC a complaint for the cancellation of LPGMA’s registration as a
party-list organization.11 They were later on joined by FPII as a
complainant-in-intervention.12

The complaint was docketed as SPP No. 10-010 and it proffered in

essence that LPGMA does not represent a marginalized sector of the society
because its incorporators, officers and members are not marginalized or
underrepresented citizens since they are actually marketers and independent
re-fillers of LPG that control 45% of the national LPG retail market and
have significant ownership interests in various LPG refilling plants. To
buttress the complaint, FPII emphasized that the business of marketing and
refilling LPG requires substantial working capital as it involves the purchase
of LPG from importers or big oil players in the country, establishment of
refilling plants and safety auxiliary equipments, purchase or lease of
thousands of LPG containers, mobilization of a marketing, distribution and
delivery network. FPII also alleged that LPGMA is a mere lobby group that
espouses their own interests before the Congress and the Department of
Energy.

In response, LPGMA countered that Section 5(2), Article VI of the

1987 Constitution does not require that party-list representatives must be
members of the marginalized and/or underrepresented sector of the society.
It also averred that the ground cited by the petitioners is not one of those
mentioned in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 and that petitioners are just trying
to resurrect their lost chance to oppose the petition for registration.13

8
Rollo (G.R. No. 193704), pp. 77-190.
9
Rollo (G.R. No. 193643), pp. 1163-1168, 1238-1244.
10
Id. at 246-252.
11
Id. at 260-269.
12
Rollo (G.R. No. 193704), pp. 678-688. The motion for intervention was approved in COMELEC
Resolution dated August 5, 2010, rollo (G.R. No. 193643), pp. 65-70.
13
Rollo (G.R. No. 193643), pp. 601-609.
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

In its first assailed Resolution dated August 5, 2010,14 the COMELEC

dismissed the complaint for two reasons. First, the ground for cancellation
cited by the petitioners is not among the exclusive enumeration in Section 6
of R.A. No. 7941. Second, the complaint is actually a belated opposition to
LPGMA’s petition for registration which has long been approved with
finality on January 5, 2010. The ruling was reiterated in the COMELEC
Resolution dated September 6, 201015 denying the petitioners’ motions for
reconsideration.16

Pivotal to the said resolutions are the ensuing ratiocinations of the

COMELEC, viz:

LPGMA’s registration was approved x x x as early as 05 January 2010.

Instead of opposing said registration or intervening therein after having
been constructively notified thereof by its publication, [petitioners] waited
almost four (4) entire months before filing the instant complaint. The
purpose of publication in these kinds of cases is similar to that of land
registration cases, which is “to apprise the whole world that such a petition
has been filed and that whoever is minded to oppose it for good cause may
do so.” This belated filing x x x is an unfortunate attempt to circumvent
the obviously final and executory nature of the Resolution dated 05
January 2010. Granting the present complaint will only reward
[petitioners’] inaction x x x.17 (Citations omitted)

The [petitioners] must be reminded that the matter has already

been ruled upon. In the Resolution promulgated on January 5, 2010 x x x,
this Commission (First Division) has resolved to grant the Petition for
Registration of LPGMA as a sectoral organization under the party-list
system of representation. After a thorough evaluation of the Petition, the
Commission (First Division) has concluded that LPGMA truly represents
a marginalized and underrepresented sector. With respect to the said
conclusion, absent any circumstance subsequent to the promulgation of the
mentioned Resolution which would call for the cancellation of registration
of LPGMA, the same can no longer be disturbed by this Commission. To
warrant a cancellation of LPGMA’s registration, there should be a strong
showing that there has been a change in the relevant factual matters
surrounding the Petition x x x.18

Ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the COMELEC, the petitioners

now implore the Court to determine the correctness of the COMELEC
resolutions dated August 5, 2010 and September 6, 2010.

14
Id. at 65-70.
15
Id. at 85-90.
16
For the individual petitioners, id. at 105-117; For petitioner FPII, rollo (G.R. No. 193704), pp. 711-
718.
17
Id. at 68-69.
18
Id. at 89.
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

The Arguments of the Parties

After directing the respondents to comment on the petitions,19 the

Court received on March 17, 2011 from the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), a Manifestation and Motion to Remand (In Lieu of Comment).20
According to the OSG, since the COMELEC failed to resolve the factual
issue on the qualifications of LPGMA as a registered party-list organization,
the case must be remanded to the electoral body for summary hearing and
reception of evidence on the matter.

For its part, LPGMA retorted that another hearing would be a

superfluity because the COMELEC has already heard and verified LPGMA’s
qualifications during the proceedings for its petition for registration.
LPGMA asserts that the petitions should instead be dismissed as they
involve factual questions that cannot be entertained in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.21

On December 26, 2012, LPGMA manifested22 to the Court that

pursuant to COMELEC Resolution dated December 13, 2012, LPGMA
passed the recent automatic review conducted by the COMELEC on the
qualifications of party-list groups. LPGMA was found compliant with the
guidelines set by law and jurisprudence and its accreditation was retained for
purposes of the 2013 party-list elections.

Ruling of the Court

There was no valid justification for the dismissal of the complaint for
cancellation. However, in light of COMELEC Resolution dated December
13, 2012, the present petitions ought to be dismissed.

An opposition to a petition for

registration is not a condition
precedent to the filing of a
complaint for cancellation.

Section 6, R.A. No. 7941 lays down the grounds and procedure for the
cancellation of party-list accreditation, viz:

19
Id. at 1109-1110.
20
Id. at 1212-1224.
21
Id. at 1120-1142.
22
Id. at 1364-1369.
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

Sec. 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration.

The COMELEC may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of

any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or
coalition on any of the following grounds:

(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization

or association, organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its
goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign
government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its
officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in
the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency
in which it has registered.

For the COMELEC to validly exercise its statutory power to cancel

the registration of a party-list group, the law imposes only two
(2) conditions: (1) due notice and hearing is afforded to the party-list group
concerned; and (2) any of the enumerated grounds for disqualification in
Section 6 exists.

Section 6 clearly does not require that an opposition to the petition for
registration be previously interposed so that a complaint for cancellation can
be entertained. Since the law does not impose such a condition, the
COMELEC, notwithstanding its delegated administrative authority to
promulgate rules for the implementation of election laws, cannot read into
the law that which it does not provide. The poll body is mandated to enforce
and administer election-related laws. It has no power to contravene or
amend them.23

Moreover, an opposition can be reasonably expected only during the

petition for registration proceedings which involve the COMELEC’s power
to register a party-list group, as distinguished from the entirely separate
power invoked by the complaint, which is the power to cancel.

23
Veterans Federation Party v. Commission on Elections, 396 Phil. 419, 424-425 (2000).
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

The distinctiveness of the two powers is immediately apparent from

their basic definitions. To refuse is to decline or to turn down,24 while to
cancel is to annul or remove.25 Adopting such meanings within the context
of Section 6, refusal of registration happens during the inceptive stage when
an organization seeks admission into the roster of COMELEC-registered
party-list organizations through a petition for registration. Cancellation on
the other hand, takes place after the fact of registration when an inquiry is
done by the COMELEC, motu propio or upon a verified complaint, on
whether a registered party-list organization still holds the qualifications
imposed by law. Refusal is handed down to a petition for registration while
cancellation is decreed on the registration itself after the petition has been
approved.

A resort to the rules of statutory construction yields a similar

conclusion.

The legal meaning of the term “and/or” between “refusal” and

“cancellation” should be taken in its ordinary significance  “refusal and/or
cancellation” means “refusal and cancellation” or “refusal or cancellation”.
It has been held that the intention of the legislature in using the term
“and/or” is that the word “and” and the word “or” are to be used
interchangeably.26

The term “and/or” means that effect shall be given to both the
conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or” or that one word or the other
may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate the
purpose intended by the legislature as gathered from the whole statute.
The term is used to avoid a construction which by the use of the
disjunctive “or” alone will exclude the combination of several of the
alternatives or by the use of the conjunctive “and” will exclude the
efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone.27

Hence, effect shall be given to both “refusal and cancellation” and

“refusal or cancellation” according to how Section 6 intended them to be
employed. The word “and” is a conjunction used to denote a joinder or
union; it is pertinently defined as meaning “together with”, “joined with”,
“along or together with.”28 The use of “and” in Section 6 was necessitated
by the fact that refusal and cancellation of party-list registration share similar
grounds, manner of initiation and procedural due process requirements of

24
ROGET’S II, The New Thesaurus (1988), p. 400.
25
Id. at 72.
26
See China Banking Corporation v. HDMF, 366 Phil. 913, 929 (1999).
27
Agpalo, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, p. 206 (2003), citing A.E. Davidson v. F. W. Wollworth Co.,
198 SE 738, 118 ALR 1363 (1938); Annotations, 118 ALR 1367 (1939); China Banking Corporation v.
HDMF, id. at 928.
28
Id., citing the concurring opinion of Justice Castro, Phil. Constitution Ass’n., Inc. v. Mathay, 124
Phil. 890, 924 (1966).
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

notice and hearing. With respect to the said matters, “refusal” and
“cancellation” must be taken together. The word “or”, on the other hand, is
a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing
from the other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the
sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word.29 As such,
“refusal or cancellation”, consistent with their disjunctive meanings, must be
taken individually to mean that they are separate instances when the
COMELEC can exercise its power to screen the qualifications of party-list
organizations for purposes of participation in the party-list system of
representation.

That this is the clear intent of the law is bolstered by the use simply of
the word “or” in the first sentence of Section 6 that “[t]he COMELEC may,
motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national,
regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition.”

Consequently, the COMELEC’s conclusion that the complaint for

cancellation, filed four (4) months after the petition was approved, is
actually a belated opposition, obliterates the distinction between the power
to register/refuse and the power to cancel. Since an opposition may only be
sensibly interposed against a petition for registration, the proceedings for
which involve the COMELEC’s power to register, it is wrong to impose it as
a condition for the exercise of the COMELEC’s entirely separate power to
cancel. As such, the absence of an opposition to a petition for registration
cannot serve to bar any interested party from questioning, through a
complaint for cancellation, the qualifications of a party-list group.

II. The accreditation of a party-

list group can never attain
perpetual and irrefutable
conclusiveness against the granting
authority.

There is no arguing that the COMELEC Resolution dated January 5,

2010 granting LPGMA’s registration has since become final. Such finality,
however, pertains only to the Resolution itself and not to the accreditation of
LPGMA as a party-list organization.

The said Resolution, as in any other resolution granting the

registration of any other organization desirous of party-list accreditation, did
nothing more but to vest with LPGMA the right to participate in the party-
29
Id. at 204; see also Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302,
April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 152, 168.
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

list elections, i.e. file a manifestation of its intent to participate and have the
same given due course by the COMELEC, the right to field its nominees, the
right to exercise all that is bestowed by our election laws to election
candidates (hold campaigns, question the canvass of election returns, etc.),
and the right to assume office should it obtain the required number of votes.
With respect to such matters, the COMELEC resolution was already final.
LPGMA’s right to run, as it did so run, during the 2010 party-list elections is
already beyond challenge.

However, the Resolution did not create in LPGMA’s favor a perpetual

and indefeasible right to its accreditation as a party-list organization.
Neither did it grant finality and indefeasibility to the factual findings of the
COMELEC on the qualifications of the group. Both the accreditation and
the facts substantiating the same, can be reviewed and revoked at any time
by the COMELEC, motu propio, or upon the instance of any interested party
thru a complaint for cancellation, as set forth in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941.

Each accreditation handed by the COMELEC to party-list

organizations can be likened to the franchise granted by Congress, thru the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to corporations or associations
created under the Corporation Code.

Franchise is a right or privilege conferred by law. It emanates from a

sovereign power and the grant is inherently a legislative power. It may,
however, be derived indirectly from the state through an agency to which the
power has been clearly and validly delegated. In such cases, Congress
prescribes the conditions on which the grant of a franchise may be made.30

The power to pass upon, refuse or deny the application for registration
of any corporation or partnership is vested with the SEC by virtue of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A. R.A. No 7941, on the other hand, is
the legislative act that delegates to the COMELEC the power to grant
franchises in the form of accreditation to people’s organization desirous of
participating in the party-list system of representation.

Corporations formed under the Corporation Code become juridical

entities only when they are granted registration by the SEC in the same way
that people’s organizations obtain legal existence as a party-list group only
upon their accreditation with the COMELEC. A party-list organization, like
a corporation, owes its legal existence to the concession of its franchise from
the State, thru the COMELEC.

30
Del Mar v. PAGCOR, 400 Phil. 307, 330 (2000). (Citations omitted)
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

Being a mere concession, it may be revoked by the granting authority

upon the existence of certain conditions. The power to revoke and grounds
for revocation are aptly provided in Section 6(1) of P.D. No. 902-A,31 for
corporations and Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 for party-list organizations.

The fact that a franchise/accreditation may be revoked means that it

can never be final and conclusive. A fortiori, the factual findings leading to
the grant of the franchise/accreditation can never attain finality as well.
Both the accreditation and the facts substantiating it can never attain
perpetual and irrefutable conclusiveness as against the power that grants it.
The circumstances of the grantee are subject to constant review and the
franchise/accreditation from which it derives its existence may be suspended
or revoked at the will of the granting authority.

The separate instances when the COMELEC can check the

qualifications of party-list groups entail distinct statutory powers―the
power to register which includes the power to refuse registration, and the
power to cancel the registration so granted. Necessarily then, proceedings
involving the exercise of one power is independent of the other such that
factual findings in the proceedings for a petition for registration are not
conclusive with respect to the factual issues that may be raised in a
complaint for cancellation.

Further, it must be noted that refusal and cancellation share similar

grounds. The registration of a putative party-list group can only be granted
if none of the disqualifications in Section 6 exists. Conversely, a complaint
for cancellation will prosper if any of the same grounds in Section 6 is
present. Inevitably then, a negative finding of disqualification in a petition
for registration is the very same fact that will be questioned in a complaint
for cancellation. Hence, to say that the findings leading to the grant of
registration are final and conclusive with respect to the qualification of the
party-list group will effectively put in vain any complaint for cancellation
that may be filed. It leads to the perilous conclusion that the registration of a
party-list group, once granted, is unassailable and perpetual which, in turn,

31
P.D. No. 902-A, Sec. 6.
xxxx
(i) To suspend, or revoke, after proper notice and hearing, the franchise or certificate of
registration of corporations, partnerships or associations, upon any of the grounds provided by law,
including the following:
[1] Fraud in procuring its certificate of registration;
[2] Serious misrepresentation as to what the corporation can do or is doing to the great
prejudice of or damage to the general public;
[3] Refusal to comply or defiance of any lawful order of the Commission restraining
commission of acts which would amount to a grave violation of its franchise;
[4] Continuous inoperation for a period of at least five (5) years;
[5] Failure to file by-laws within the required period;
[6] Failure to file required reports in appropriate forms as determined by the
Commission within the prescribed period;
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

will render nugatory the equally existing power of the COMELEC to cancel
the same. R.A. No. 7941 could not have contemplated such an absurdity.

The Court has recognized the COMELEC’s cancellation power in

several occasions.

In Bello v. COMELEC,32 the Court confirmed that a complaint for the

cancellation of party-list registration, aside from a petition for the
disqualification of the party-list nominee, provides a “plain, speedy and
adequate remedy”, against a party-list organization alleged to have failed to
comply with Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 880733 which requires
a party-list group and its nominees to submit documentary evidence to prove
that they belong to a marginalized and underrepresented sector.

In the recent ABC (Alliance for Barangay Concerns) Party-List v.

COMELEC,34 the Court reiterated that Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 validates
the authority of the COMELEC, not only to register political parties,
organizations or coalitions, but also to cancel their registration based on the
same legal grounds. Such authority emanates from no less than Section
2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution, which states:

Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers

and functions:

xxxx

(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,

organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must
present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’
arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects
shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall
likewise be refused registration.

Financial contributions from foreign governments and their

agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related
to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted,
shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with
the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by
law. (Underscoring ours)

32
G.R. No. 191998, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 59, 71.
33
Section 6 of the Resolution provides that the party-list group and the nominees must submit
documentary evidence to duly prove that the nominees truly belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector/s, and to the sectoral party, organization, political party or coalition they seek to
represent. It likewise provides that the COMELEC Law Department shall require party-list groups and
nominees to make the required documentary submissions, if not already complied with prior to the
effectivity of the Resolution, not later than three (3) days from the last day of filing of the list of nominees.
34
G.R. No. 193256, March 22, 2011, 646 SCRA 93, 103-104.
Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

It is the role of the COMELEC to ensure the realization of the intent

of the Constitution to give genuine power to those who have less in life by
enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, by seeing to it
that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented become
members of Congress under the party-list system.35 To effectively discharge
this role, R.A. No. 7941 grants the COMELEC the power not only to register
party-list groups but also to review and cancel their registration.

In ruling that the finality of its Resolution dated January 5, 2010

stretched to the accreditation of LPGMA, the COMELEC practically
enfeebled and denied its own power to cancel what it is exclusively
empowered to grant.

Under paragraph 5 of Section 6, a

party-list organization may be
disqualified on the ground that its
officers and members do not belong
to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector.

The allegation in the complaint for cancellation, that the

incorporators, officers and members of LPGMA do not belong to the
marginalized or underrepresented sector, is within the ambit of paragraph 5
of Section 6.

In Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC,36 the Court

explained that the “laws, rules or regulations relating to elections” referred
to in paragraph 5 include Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941,37 which declares the
underlying policy for the law that marginalized and underrepresented
Filipino citizens become members of the House of Representatives, viz:

Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or

group for violation of or failure to comply with election laws and
regulations. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that
35
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 334 (2001).
36
Id.
37
R.A. No. 7941, Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State shall promote proportional
representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system
of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable
Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and
who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment
of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of
Representatives . Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system
in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
provide the simplest scheme possible.
Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

the party-list system seeks to “enable Filipino citizens belonging to

marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x
to become members of the House of Representatives.” A party or an
organization, therefore, that does not comply with this policy must be
disqualified.38

The party-list system of representation was crafted for the

marginalized and underrepresented and their alleviation is the ultimate
policy of the law. In fact, there is no need to categorically mention that
“those who are not marginalized and underrepresented are disqualified.” As
state policy, it must permeate every discussion of the qualification of
political parties and other organizations under the party-list system.39

All told, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in

dismissing the complaint for cancellation of LPGMA’s party-list
accreditation. In the ordinary course of procedure, the herein complaint
should be remanded to the COMELEC considering that the poll body did not
proceed to make a proximate determination of the present circumstances of
LPGMA’s qualifications. In view, however of superseding incidents, the
issue involved in the complaint for cancellation can be deemed to have been
already settled and a remand to the COMELEC would only be circuitous and
dilatory.

On August 2, 2012, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 951340

which subjected to summary evidentiary hearings all existing and registered
party-list groups, including LPGMA, to assess their continuing compliance
with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and the guidelines set in Ang
Bagong Bayani. The Resolution stated, among others, that the registration
of all non-compliant groups shall be cancelled. LPGMA submitted to a
factual and evidentiary hearing before the COMELEC en banc on August
28, 2012.

On December 13, 2012, the COMELEC issued a Resolution41

identifying and listing the party-list groups found to have complied with the
qualifications set by law and jurisprudence. The list of retained party-list
groups included LPGMA. Pertinent portions of the Resolution read:

38
Supra note 35, at 344.
39
Id.
40
In the matter of: (1) the automatic review by the Commission En Banc of Pending Petitions for
Registration of Party-List Groups; and (2) setting for hearing the accredited party-list groups or
organizations which are existing and which have filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 2013
national and local elections.
41
A certified true copy thereof was submitted to the Court by LPGMA on December 26, 2012; rollo
(G.R. No. 193643), pp. 1370-1384.
 Decision 14 GR. Nos. 193643 and 193704

After exhaustive deliberation and careful review of the records, the

Commission en bane finds the following groups accredited with the party-
list system compliant with the law and jurisprudence, and thus resolves to
retain their registration for purposes of allowing them to participate in the
2013 elections. These groups and organizations, as well as their respective
nominees, possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
under the law. Moreover, these groups belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors they seek to represent; they have genuinely and
continuously supported their members and constituents, as shown by their
track records.

In order to streamline the list of accredited groups that will be

allowed to participate in the 2013 elections, both the existing groups
retained, and the new applicants whose petitions for registration have been
granted, shall be listed herein. The Commission however finds it
necessary to identify the groups retained or allowed but with dissent from
some of the Commissioners, thus:

xxxx

Table 2
EXISTING PARTY-LIST RETAINED (With dissent)
PARTY-LIST ACRONYM
xxxx
35 LPG Marketers Association, Inc. LPGMA
42
X X X X

Evidently, the COMELEC has already determined and declared that

the present factual circumstances of LPGMA meet the qualifications
imposed by law on party-list groups. It will be a needless roundabout to still
remand the complaint to the COMELEC for it to determine anew the present
state of LPGMA's qualifications. No useful purpose will be served thereby
and it will just be a tedious process of hearing the factual and evidentiary
matters of LPGMA's qualifications again. The COMELEC in its Resolution
dated December 13, 2012 has passed upon the issue and all other relevant
questions raised in the complaint.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the consolidated

petitions are hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
42
ld. at 1381-1382.
 Decision 15 GR. Nos. 193643 and 193704

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CAR
Associate Justice

.
~ ..£-".I/_, do ua:;;
TERESITA J.a'ONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice

~tt~S wvl-lt ~~.£.- O'p-1"J1.4b '1 °

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBE~D

Associate Justice Associate Justice

-
~S.VILLA

JOSECA~NDOZA MJ),,~'
ESTELA '1VfJ PERLAS-BERNABE
As:~~j=~~ce Associate Justice
Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 193643 and 193704

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice